skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: SU-F-T-135: A Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of Range Uncertainty in Brain Patients

Abstract

Purpose: We retrospectively evaluate the dosimetric impact of a 3.5% range uncertainty on CTV coverage and normal organ toxicity for a cohort of brain patients. Methods: Twenty treatment plans involving 20 brain cancer patients treated with Mevions S250 were reviewed. Forty uncertain plans were made by changing the ranges in original plans by ±3.5% while keeping all devices unchanged. Fidelity to the original plans was evaluated with gamma index. Changes in generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) were reported for the following structures: CTV coverage, brainstem, optic chiasm, and optic nerves. Comparisons were made by plotting the relevant endpoints from the uncertain plans as a function of the same endpoints from the original clinical plan. Results: Gamma-index analysis resulted in a 50% pass rate of the uncertain plans using a 90% passing rate and 3%/3mm criterion. A 9.5% decrease in the slope of gEUD plot for the CTV was observed for the 3.5% downward range shift. However, the change in slope did not result in a gEUD change greater than 1.1% for the CTV. The slopes of the gEUD plots for normal structures increased by 3.1% 3.9% 2.4% and 0.2% for the chiasm, brainstem, left optic nerve and right optic nervemore » respectively. The maximum deviation from the gEUD of the clinical plan for normal structures was: 64% in the chiasm, 31% for the brainstem, and 19% for both optic nerves. Conclusion: A retrospective review shows moderate radiobiological impact of range uncertainty in passively scattered proton therapy with sporadic catastrophe. The linear regression analysis on the statistical data indicates a systematic deviation of gEUD from treatment planning in the light of range uncertainty.« less

Authors:
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;  [1]
  1. Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO (United States)
Publication Date:
OSTI Identifier:
22642376
Resource Type:
Journal Article
Resource Relation:
Journal Name: Medical Physics; Journal Volume: 43; Journal Issue: 6; Other Information: (c) 2016 American Association of Physicists in Medicine; Country of input: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES; 61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY; BRAIN; NERVES; OPTICS; PATIENTS; PLANNING; PROTON BEAMS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DATA; VISIBLE RADIATION

Citation Formats

Grantham, K, Santanam, L, Goddu, S, Sun, B, Zhang, T, Mutic, S, Robinson, C, Huang, J, Perkins, S, Tsien, C, Bradley, J, and Zhao, T. SU-F-T-135: A Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of Range Uncertainty in Brain Patients. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.1118/1.4956271.
Grantham, K, Santanam, L, Goddu, S, Sun, B, Zhang, T, Mutic, S, Robinson, C, Huang, J, Perkins, S, Tsien, C, Bradley, J, & Zhao, T. SU-F-T-135: A Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of Range Uncertainty in Brain Patients. United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956271.
Grantham, K, Santanam, L, Goddu, S, Sun, B, Zhang, T, Mutic, S, Robinson, C, Huang, J, Perkins, S, Tsien, C, Bradley, J, and Zhao, T. 2016. "SU-F-T-135: A Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of Range Uncertainty in Brain Patients". United States. doi:10.1118/1.4956271.
@article{osti_22642376,
title = {SU-F-T-135: A Retrospective Analysis of the Impact of Range Uncertainty in Brain Patients},
author = {Grantham, K and Santanam, L and Goddu, S and Sun, B and Zhang, T and Mutic, S and Robinson, C and Huang, J and Perkins, S and Tsien, C and Bradley, J and Zhao, T},
abstractNote = {Purpose: We retrospectively evaluate the dosimetric impact of a 3.5% range uncertainty on CTV coverage and normal organ toxicity for a cohort of brain patients. Methods: Twenty treatment plans involving 20 brain cancer patients treated with Mevions S250 were reviewed. Forty uncertain plans were made by changing the ranges in original plans by ±3.5% while keeping all devices unchanged. Fidelity to the original plans was evaluated with gamma index. Changes in generalized equivalent uniform dose (gEUD) were reported for the following structures: CTV coverage, brainstem, optic chiasm, and optic nerves. Comparisons were made by plotting the relevant endpoints from the uncertain plans as a function of the same endpoints from the original clinical plan. Results: Gamma-index analysis resulted in a 50% pass rate of the uncertain plans using a 90% passing rate and 3%/3mm criterion. A 9.5% decrease in the slope of gEUD plot for the CTV was observed for the 3.5% downward range shift. However, the change in slope did not result in a gEUD change greater than 1.1% for the CTV. The slopes of the gEUD plots for normal structures increased by 3.1% 3.9% 2.4% and 0.2% for the chiasm, brainstem, left optic nerve and right optic nerve respectively. The maximum deviation from the gEUD of the clinical plan for normal structures was: 64% in the chiasm, 31% for the brainstem, and 19% for both optic nerves. Conclusion: A retrospective review shows moderate radiobiological impact of range uncertainty in passively scattered proton therapy with sporadic catastrophe. The linear regression analysis on the statistical data indicates a systematic deviation of gEUD from treatment planning in the light of range uncertainty.},
doi = {10.1118/1.4956271},
journal = {Medical Physics},
number = 6,
volume = 43,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 6
}
  • Purpose: Data comparing the clinical outcomes of local brain radiotherapy (LBRT) and whole brain RT (WBRT) in patients with a single brain metastasis after tumor removal are limited. Patients and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed to compare the patterns of treatment failure, cause of death, progression-free survival, median survival time, and Karnofsky performance status for long-term survivors among patients who underwent surgery followed by either LBRT or WBRT between 1990 and 2008 at the National Cancer Center Hospital. Results: A total of 130 consecutive patients were identified. The median progression-free survival period among the patients who received postoperative LBRTmore » (n = 64) and WBRT (n = 66) was 9.7 and 11.5 months, respectively (p = .75). The local recurrence rates (LBRT, 9.4% vs. WBRT, 12.1%) and intracranial new metastasis rate (LBRT, 42.2% vs. WBRT, 33.3%) were similar in each arm. The incidence of leptomeningeal metastasis was also equivalent (LBRT, 9.4% vs. WBRT, 10.6%). The median survival time for the LBRT and WBRT patients was 13.9 and 16.7 months, respectively (p = .88). A neurologic cause of death was noted in 35.6% of the patients in the LBRT group and 36.7% of the WBRT group (p = .99). The Karnofsky performance status at 2 years was comparable between the two groups. Conclusions: The clinical outcomes of LBRT and WBRT were similar. A prospective evaluation is warranted.« less
  • Purpose: We retrospectively investigated the impact of weight change (WC) during concurrent chemoradiation therapy (C-CRT) on clinical outcomes of stage 3B non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. Methods and Materials: A total of 425 patients treated with C-CRT were included. All patients received 60 to 66 Gy of thoracic radiation therapy concurrently with 1 to 3 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Pre- and posttreatment weight measurements on first and last days of C-CRT were used for WC. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 = weight loss (WL); group 2 = weight preservation/gain (WP) for comparative analyses. Results: Following C-CRT,more » 252 patients (59.3%) experienced WL, while 89 patients (20.9%) and 84 patients (19.8%) showed WP or WG. At median 24.2 months of follow-up, 142 patients (33.4%) were alive (84 WP [48.6%] and 58 WL [23.0%]), and 58 (13.6%) of them were free of disease progression (41 [23.7%] for WP and 17 [6.7%] for WL). Median overall survival (OS), locoregional progression-free survival (LRPFS), progression-free survival (PFS), and distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) for the entire population were 22.8, 14.4, 10.6, and 11.7 months, respectively. Intergroup comparisons between WP and WL cohorts revealed significantly superior OS, LRPFS, PFS, and DMFS in WP patients (P<.05 for each). On multivariate analyses, only WL and advanced T stage were associated with poor prognosis (P<.05). Conclusions: Present results in 425 stage 3B NSCLC patients demonstrated that WL during C-CRT is strongly associated with inferior survival outcomes compared to WP. This emerging finding might be useful by forming an encouraging basis for future investigations in facilitating a way to improve the outcomes of these patients experiencing WL during C-CRT.« less
  • Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the prognostic factors and survival of a series of 777 patients with brain metastases (BM) from a single institution. Methods and Materials: Patients were treated with surgery followed by whole-brain radiation therapy (WBRT) or with WBRT alone in 16.3% and 83.7% of the cases, respectively. The patients were RPA (recursive partitioning analysis) class I, II, and III in 11.2%, 69.6%, and 18.4% of the cases, respectively; RPA class II-a, II-b, and II-c in 8.3%, 24.8%, and 66.9% of the cases, respectively; and with GPA (graded prognostic assessment) scores of 0-1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3.0, and 3.5-4.0 in 35%,more » 27.5%, 18.2%, and 8.6% of the cases, respectively. Results: The median overall survival (OS) times according to RPA class I, II, and III were 20.1, 5.1, and 1.3 months, respectively (P<.0001); according to RPA class II-a, II-b, II-c: 9.1, 8.9, and 4.0 months, respectively (P<.0001); and according to GPA score 0-1.0, 1.5-2.0, 2.5-3.0, and 3.5-4.0: 2.5, 4.4, 9.0, and 19.1 months, respectively (P<.0001). By multivariate analysis, the favorable independent prognostic factors for survival were as follows: for gastrointestinal tumor, a high Karnofsky performance status (KPS) (P=.0003) and an absence of extracranial metastases (ECM) (P=.003); for kidney cancer, few BM (P=.002); for melanoma, few BM (P=.01), an absence of ECM (P=.002), and few ECM (P=.0002); for lung cancer, age (P=.007), a high KPS (P<.0001), an absence of ECM (P<.0001), few ECM and BM (P<.0001 and P=.0006, respectively), and control of the primary tumor (P=.004); and for breast cancer, age (P=.001), a high KPS (P=.007), control of the primary tumor (P=.05), and few ECM and BM (P=.01 and P=.0002, respectively). The triple-negative subtype was a significant unfavorable factor (P=.007). Conclusion: Prognostic factors varied by pathology. Our analysis confirms the strength of prognostic factors used to determine the GPA score, including the genetic subtype for breast cancer.« less
  • Purpose: To quantify the impact of range and setup uncertainties on various dosimetric indices that are used to assess normal tissue toxicities of patients receiving passive scattering proton beam therapy (PSPBT). Methods: Robust analysis of sample treatment plans of six brain cancer patients treated with PSPBT at our facility for whom the maximum brain stem dose exceeded 5800 CcGE were performed. The DVH of each plan was calculated in an Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS) version 11 applying ±3.5% range uncertainty and ±3 mm shift of the isocenter in x, y and z directions to account for setup uncertainties. Worst-casemore » dose indices for brain stem and whole brain were compared to their values in the nominal plan to determine the average change in their values. For the brain stem, maximum dose to 1 cc of volume, dose to 10%, 50%, 90% of volume (D10, D50, D90) and volume receiving 6000, 5400, 5000, 4500, 4000 CcGE (V60, V54, V50, V45, V40) were evaluated. For the whole brain, maximum dose to 1 cc of volume, and volume receiving 5400, 5000, 4500, 4000, 3000 CcGE (V54, V50, V45, V40 and V30) were assessed. Results: The average change in the values of these indices in the worst scenario cases from the nominal plan were as follows. Brain stem; Maximum dose to 1 cc of volume: 1.1%, D10: 1.4%, D50: 8.0%, D90:73.3%, V60:116.9%, V54:27.7%, V50: 21.2%, V45:16.2%, V40:13.6%,Whole brain; Maximum dose to 1 cc of volume: 0.3%, V54:11.4%, V50: 13.0%, V45:13.6%, V40:14.1%, V30:13.5%. Conclusion: Large to modest changes in the dosiemtric indices for brain stem and whole brain compared to nominal plan due to range and set up uncertainties were observed. Such potential changes should be taken into account while using any dosimetric parameters for outcome evaluation of patients receiving proton therapy.« less
  • Purpose: Epidemiological studies of second cancer risks in breast cancer radiotherapy patients often use generic patient anatomy to reconstruct normal tissue doses when CT images of patients are not available. To evaluate the uncertainty involved in the dosimetry approach, we evaluated the esophagus dose in five sample patients by simulating breast cancer treatments. Methods: We obtained the diagnostic CT images of five anonymized adult female patients in different Body Mass Index (BMI) categories (16– 36kg/m2) from National Institutes of Health Clinical Center. We contoured the esophagus on the CT images and imported them into a Treatment Planning System (TPS) tomore » create treatment plans and calculate esophagus doses. Esophagus dose was calculated once again via experimentally-validated Monte Carlo (MC) transport code, XVMC under the same geometries. We compared the esophagus doses from TPS and the MC method. We also investigated the degree of variation in the esophagus dose across the five patients and also the relationship between the patient characteristics and the esophagus doses. Results: Eclipse TPS using Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA) significantly underestimates the esophagus dose in breast cancer radiotherapy compared to MC. In the worst case, the esophagus dose from AAA was only 40% of the MC dose. The Coefficient of Variation across the patients was 48%. We found that the maximum esophagus dose was up to 2.7 times greater than the minimum. We finally observed linear relationship (Dose = 0.0218 × BMI – 0.1, R2=0.54) between patient’s BMI and the esophagus doses. Conclusion: We quantified the degree of uncertainty in the esophagus dose in five sample breast radiotherapy patients. The results of the study underscore the importance of individualized dose reconstruction for the study cohort to avoid misclassification in the risk analysis of second cancer. We are currently extending the number of patients up to 30.« less